- Quickdraw McLaw
- 20 Comments
- 154 Views
- The Supreme Court issued its opinions on the topic of President Trump’s taxes. [NY Times]
- The Nevada Supreme Court is inviting additional public comment regarding the amendment of NRCP 41(e), COVID-19 stay orders, and district courts resuming trials. Comments are due by 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2020.
- Chief Judge Bell has issued Administrative Order 20-18 establishing rooms at the Las Vegas Convention Center as a courtroom for an upcoming bench trial involving more than 50 individuals on a daily basis. [Eighthjdcourt blog]
- The CCSD school board is scheduled to vote on the reopening plan tonight. [KTNV]
- Day 2 of the Special Legislative Session is today and more than just healthcare and education are going to face budget cuts. [TNI]
Off topic. Hypothetical question.
Party 1 and Party B have an ongoing contract. There is no breach. Then one day, Party B says "effective immediately, I've changed the terms of our contract." Party 1 says, "no thanks."
Simple question: At this point, do the Parties still have any kind of contract? If so, what?
Isn't that one of your favorite terms from law school – anticipatory repudiation? Alternatively, it seems to be an offer to amend the contract with a rejection, so I would still think there would be a contract with the original terms. However, I'd look at the contract and determine what formalities are required to modify it. Most written contracts state that the terms of the contract can only be modified in writing signed by all parties.
What exactly is the contract? If it is for supplies to a business for instance, it isn't really an ongoing contract, you may really be talking about a new contract repeated over and over again for each delivery. So ahead of the next delivery, the party says "I need x, y, and z… for this price" Making an offer that was then rejected and there is no contract between the parties.
935 here. Trying to keep it simple, so just assume it's an ongoing contract that can be terminated at will. Instead of terminating, Party B is trying to unilaterally make changes.
Seems simple to me, but may be I'm missing something? Even if it's terminable at will, then it is not terminated until one of the parties does whatever the contract says needs to be done to terminate it. E.g., notice in writing, or whatever.
Assuming there is nothing in the contract stating what must be done to terminate it, still seems to me that B has not terminated the contract unless it is clear from his words / actions that he no longer intends to perform the contract as agreed. Then I'd probably argue he's terminated / repudiated it.
Now I'm curious… why does it matter? Is A waiting on some performance by B under the original terms? If so and B doesn't perform, then it seems to me there is a breach.
Depending on why it matters, I might advise A to clarify in writing whether B is terminating the contract.
3:54 here – to clarify, I mean I don't think that B asserting there are new terms, and A declining to agree, necessarily terminates the existing contract. Agree with 10:02 on that point.
Las Vegas Convention Center as a courtroom,,, this kind of gave me a flashback to the glory days of Judge Earl overseeing the gigantic construction litigation cases at the Complex Litigation Center.
Not gonna lie, I had no exposure to The Nevada Independent before finding this blog. Finding more and more that they seem the most unbiased, actual news site out there. You never hear this stuff on the main news channels.
That said, ouch on those budget cuts.
If you find the Indy's reporting useful and informative, please be sure to donate to keep it going. (I'm not Ralston btw; just a fan of the free press.)
Jon Ralston is a smug narcissist.
I agree, they are a great news org. And I 2nd 1:06's suggestion: please consider donating.
1:03 here, done and done on a monthly donation, gotta support the good guys when I can. Not the fancy pen level though. Someday.
Jon is a smugly smarmy narcissist who is running the best paper in Nevada presently.
Ralston just tweeted some of the above comments about donating and him being a smug narcissist. Unfortunately, the blog must not matter because he didn't link it and simply called it "a local blog."
This is "a local blog." Would you prefer he reference it as "esteemed local blog for the las vegas community" or something?
Also, this is a blog for the legal community. Not sure how helpful it'd be to have the Las Vegas twitterverse in here.
1:17. very, very true.
That does not change the fact that he is very astute politically, calls politicians out on all their shenanigans, and, unlike most political journalists, is not overly deferential to office holders simply to receive their cooperation with an interview or story. In fact he can be real sarcastic, and downright disrespectful to the interview subjects, and that is often deserved and warranted, as well as often being humorous and entertaining.
Chuck Muth is also somewhat like that at times(real tough on political players), and that is a valuable and useful approach, even though his views are far more to the right than my own
So, when someone is performing a function that few if any local journalists are performing(being a real effective political watch dog who holds people accountable), it is relatively unimportant if he/she does not present as a wonderful or warm human being. In fact, in this area, effective political reporting, nice guys finish last
So, 1:17 is right, but I'm not sure that is what is important when evaluating this type of journalist.
Did meet him twice and he seemed unnecessarily sarcastic and dismissive.
But sometimes you need a real SOB journalist to go after the big game.
Among other things I like about him, he regularly calls out the Adelson rag for the lousy excuse for journalism that it is. Too many "journalists" are in reality publicists or cheerleaders, or so lazy that they just repackage press releases as stories.
I disagree on two counts: (1) running a local online news site in Nevada is not big game hunting; (2) one does not need to be an asshole to be a competent professional in any field, whether it be law or journalism.
Jon is gifted, obviously, but incredibly insecure for some reason. That's why he is so smarmy and such an insufferable narcissist. I've watched him bounce around from one local media outlet to another over the years, as he created some kind of show or medium around his work and personally. Eventually, they all fizzle out. The Indy has lasted longer because he is in charge. Make no mistake though, eventually it too will burn out, mostly because of his personality. From looking at his itinerant employment history, it could be inferred he is somewhat difficult to work with.
Uh, Dept of Taxation brings in money. Why cut their budget?
Twenty-three layoffs at the Department of Taxation, which also plans to close its Henderson office. The department’s Marijuana Regulation Division will also keep 10 positions vacant, including auditors and inspectors, in a move that’s expected to save $4.2 million. It also plans to cut public service announcement costs by $15,000.
Cutting positions that bring in revenue is shooting yourself in the foot. But assuming revenue generation isn't actually at issue, do you save Tax Dept. functionaries at the expense of education and health and human services?